Security, Connecting thru T5

[Ozzy]

Does anyone know if flying BA into and out of T5 we will still have to go through security before getting to the connecting flight?

Last year I flew BA from Geneva to LHR then BA LHR to BOS and had to go through securty - I was always airside. The explanation from the droids at security was that the security at Geneva was not of the same standard as the BAA's. Say what? So my BA flight from Geneva was less safe than my BA flight to BOS? This can't be the correct reason can it?

Ozzy

[manintheback]

Its correct. Security is indeed of a far higher standard at Geneva

[brenmcc1]

Yes you will.

You will go through a ba 'ready to fly desk' and then up an esculator into the same security area as pax starting their journey.

[PAXboy]

It's probably to do with the fact that you are going to the USA. They will require all sorts of things from the carrier.

I sit to be corrected.

[spanishflea]

It's probably to do with the fact that you are going to the USA. They will require all sorts of things from the carrier.

Nothing to do with that, anyone connecting from outside of the UK has to reclear security in the connections area.

To be fair it is like that in most countries around the world too.

[apaddyinuk]

There are very few countries in the world where by you will not have to go through security a second time when connecting from an overseas flight. More often then not the government which sets the security standards will insist that ALL passengers on all flights should go through the security which is set down by that countries law regardless of whether you have undergone a similar security regime in another country.

Hope that makes sense to you!

[deltayankee]

At AMS/EHAM in the Schengen area (piers B and C) you step off one flight then walk straight onto another with no further security. There is security only for people going from Schengen to rest-of-world and at the gates in the non-Shenghen area. Pier D gates can be configured for both access from the Schengen area (upstairs) and the non-Schengen area (downstairs). These gates have the security hardware but it is unused in the case of a Schengen flight.

[Ozzy]

Hope that makes sense to you!

No it does not. By that standard flights from A to B maybe less/morse safe than flights from B to C. I want a uniform level of safetiness when traveling. Don't tell me Genava's security is less/more than LHR. Who the **** do I trust?

Insanity.

Ozzy

[spanishflea]

It doesn't make much sense in my eyes either. But it existed pre 9/11 and it sure as hell asn't going away now.

[Mark in CA]

I don't recall going through a security check when making a connection from the U.S. to Hungary through Frankfurt a couple years ago. I guess I'll get to test that again in May on my next connection there.

I can see having to go through security if you're connecting from a domestic flight to an international, or vice versa. But if you're connecting from one international flight to another, you never go outside the secure area, so why would you go through security again?

[HZ123]

As someone dealing with auditing of standards of Security, that of HAL within the UK and the UK in general is of a good standard. The Dft (transec) for all their faults also try to instil a strict operation. Many prominent EU airports leave a great deal to be desired.

[42psi]

I think you'll find the correct response is in the reply from HZ123

It's all to do with auditing ..... the UK don't audit the security regime at Geneva/Hamburg/Moscow/Jakarta etc so have no idea if it's excellent/poor or whatever.....

Given that auditing means "testing" that there's a written spec that is adequate and that the actual practice used means the written spec is adhered to the end result is that all security elsewhere is treated by the DfT as "unknown".


I suppose it really raises the question "is that the correct test to apply?".


If the DfT are correct then how can other security regimes accept on faith the adequecy of annothers effectiveness??

[PAXboy]

Thanks for the corrections
Mark in CA

But if you're connecting from one international flight to another, you never go outside the secure area, so why would you go through security again?

But you do mix with ground staff, retail staff and others who may have more opportunities to smuggle dangerous items to airside.

[Ozzy]

But it existed pre 9/11 and it sure as hell asn't going away now

I don't think it did. I recall coming off a flight from the US arriving at T4, going through the flight connection door, past the checkin desks, up the escalator and back into departures without ever going through security and I was always airside.

Ozzy

[Mark in CA]

PAXBoy: But you do mix with ground staff, retail staff and others who may have more opportunities to smuggle dangerous items to airside.


Yes, but don't these people go through security, too? I certainly could be wrong, but my understanding was that international travel passengers (and workers in those parts of the airport, too) are essentially in quarantine, cut off from all other parts of the airport. So long as you remain in quarantine, there's no need for further security actions. Transiting between domestic and international or vice versa breaks the quarantine and requires further security measures.

As I said, I'll get to do this again in May while transiting through FRA on my way from SFO to LED. I'll pay attention this time and see what the security situation is there.

[Ozzy]

But you do mix with ground staff, retail staff and others who may have more opportunities to smuggle dangerous items to airside.

well lets look at this. 1. I was airside before I arrived, was my flight less safe on the same airline? 2. So domestic security is crap?

Ozzy

[MrSoft]

I think the logic in the explanations here is very clear.

They don't put a second line of security in place because Geneva security is crap.

They do put a second line of security in place, because there is no way of guaranteeing Geneva security isn't crap.

I think this has been appropriate for a long time, even going back to Lockerbie, which demonstrated the risks of trusting everyone else's security screening.

[Ozzy]

I think the logic in the explanations here is very clear.

They don't put a second line of security in place because Geneva security is crap.

They do put a second line of security in place, because there is no way of guaranteeing Geneva security isn't crap.

I think this has been appropriate for a long time, even going back to Lockerbie, which demonstrated the risks of trusting everyone else's security screening.

So what you are saying is that a flight from A to B may be less safe than a flight from B to C (or vice versa) because preflight security is not standard. How enlightening. How frightening. This is bollocks.

Ozzy

[Skylion]

Transfers at T4 have been subject to security checks since within a week or two of its opening on April 12th 1986. The requirement for reconciliation of transfer baggage came in at the same time,- well before Lockerbie,- and this created enormous headaches for BA although they implimented the checks immediately. The building and systems were designed without either of these things being a requirement, so the facilities have never been ideal.
The range of points of origin of transfer passengers at LHR and their sheer volume, and the fact that people from all of them can mix freely, means that it is impossible for some to be subject to transfer security checks and others exempted.
Undoubtedly the current searches will therefore continue at T5 but hopefully as the building has been designed with the full knowledge of what is now required they will be conducted more easily and in better surroundings than before

[Skipness One Echo]

Flew Sydney-Bangkok-Heathrow Glasgow pre 9-11 and only cleared security at Sydney. Nowadays it's a complete pantomime run by morons.